14 killed (13 on the spot) and over 130 wounded in Barcelona in 2017; no truck, just one of those white vans which require the same kind of driver’s license as a car.
Defend them from what?.. Ze Germans?
There are no actual lions at your local Food Lion.
So due to your ignorance of hunting, or the fact that you do none. You assign those same values to everyone else and wonder why so many people disagree with you?
I have 6 types of meat in my freezer. 2 of which you can buy at a grocer. On top of those two, I have elk, white tail, axis, and dove.
Hint: All 4 of those I got using my evil ass guns
No, that’s all wrong.
I don’t wonder at all. I get it. You like to kill things. It’s a matter of survival.
Is that all you need? We can both have what we want.
You get to defend your home with a powerful weapon, you get to hunt for all the food you want, I get to have a blanket ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons. You get to do all the good stuff that guns do, I get to ban the weapons used in 95% of gun crimes.
It’s win-win.
I live in a country with strong gun controls, relatively low gun violence, and no epidemic of school shootings. It’s also a country where, if you are so inclined, you can go out in the woods and kill things for food if your are so inclined. Hint: with a big-ass gun.
So comments like yours in a thread about gun control have exactly zero value.
Yes, but gun advocates fear any such ban because the kinds of guns that are the most “fun” have the least justification and are thus most likely to be restricted. But since any argument with the word “fun” in it would be unpersuasive, it’s much better to substitute words like “freedom” and “constitution” and phrases alluding to slippery slopes and government oppression. Bonus points for working in a quote from Martin Niemöller or anything about Nazis.
Here, let me summarize this thread, which has evolved from its original posting about the millionth or whatever mass shooting in the US to a fairly comprehensive discussion about gun control. I’ll do it with the simplest possible Q&A:
Q: Is there any hope of any meaningful reform at all to stem the flood of gun violence in the USA in any foreseeable future?
A: No.
Especially not when the prevailing attitude continues to be: “You’ll take my gun out of my cold dead hand.”
Usually said without an ounce of sense for irony.
There’s probably no hope of meaningful gun restrictions. That doesn’t mean there’s no hope of reducing the violence. The motivations behind the violence can still be addressed.
Like video games, violent movies, comic books, commie agitators, left-wing professors etc.?
I just suggested one possibility upthread. Look, I get that many people’s preference is to increase gun control. And I’m not even denying that it would lessen these shootings. Of course it would. But it’s goddamn hard to achieve gun control politically, so I see no reason why it needs to be the ONLY path to decreasing the shootings.
Perhaps I was a bit brash with my answer…and maybe such a topic deserves its own thread, which I think I’ll create.
New thread here on addressing the issue of gun violence without the use of gun restrictions and/or elimination.
There is always hope that violence can be reduced, it has fallen significantly since 1993 without any real legislation in the US. It will take compromise by both sides however to continue this trend. I simply don’t see anything that the control side is willing to give up in order to get what they want.
ETA: Fixed a typo…
The control side will first need to understand. And the last few pages of this thread firmly demonstrate, that they simply don’t.
Between wolfpup, Cheese, and Quicksilver, there is no debate, they are simply right, you are wrong and thus it shall continue.
It’s a good thing to be on the side winning the court cases.
So, if I want a ban on handguns and semi-automatic long guns, I should be willing to give up… something… to get that? I’ve already stated, just a couple of posts upthread that you can have guns for home defense and you can have guns for hunting.
What could I possibly give up besides that that’s going to make gun owners accept the ban? Name anything that isn’t “not banning guns”.
On top of that, my goal here isn’t for some sort of personal benefit, my goal is to save over 10,000 lives a year, and your asking for some sort of kickback to make the deal worth your while. I want to save 10,000 lives and you’re asking “what’s in it for me?” The answer is “nothing”, there’s nothing in this deal for you, unless you’re one of the 10,000 who are going to be shot and killed over the next 12 months. The deal is for them, not you, and not me.
You are absolutely correct. Not calling out anyone in this thread but the interest to learn is never shown.
The court has already decided that a blanket ban isn’t going to happen. If you can’t get past that, my point is proven.
So I guess if that’s the way you feel, why not bark up the anti smoking tree? There are no constitutional protections at play, no pesky amendments in the way. The science is proven as well. The number of deaths are exponentially higher and there is really no argument for anything beneficial when it comes to smoking?
It’s clear that the US is fine with almost 500,000 deaths annually from smoking. It seems like there should be some low hanging fruit there to harvest.
What is it that you’re teaching that isn’t being learned?
How about the difference between an assault rifle and and assault weapon to start with? Without looking it up, I bet you and most others don’t know the difference either yet are all too happy to champion a ban on both.